Lie-sim demo #1085
Lie-sim demo #1085
Conversation
* adjoint diff tutorial improvement * Apply suggestions from code review Co-authored-by: Mudit Pandey <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: Matthew Silverman <[email protected]> * update date --------- Co-authored-by: Mudit Pandey <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: Matthew Silverman <[email protected]>
* Updated ensemble demo * Trigger ci * Update circuit cutting demo * Updated stop_recording * Update tutorial to not rely on tape context * Update demonstrations/tutorial_quantum_circuit_cutting.py Co-authored-by: Matthew Silverman <[email protected]> --------- Co-authored-by: Matthew Silverman <[email protected]>
* use new image * Added hero_illustrationd folder to _static, added fermionic_ops_hero.png, modified tutorial_fermionic_operators.py and metadata to add hero image and delete previous image. --------- Co-authored-by: CatalinaAlbornoz <[email protected]>
* Test interactive demo * Test interactive demo * fix * Test interactive demo * fix * fix * fix * fix * absolute directories
Co-authored-by: Christina Lee <[email protected]>
* Interactive demo * Interactive test3 * fix
demonstrations/tutorial_liesim.py
Outdated
| Let us see what the fuss is all about and learn about the conceptually interesting, yet practically not-too-relevant | ||
| Lie-algebraic simulation techniques of variational quantum circuits in :math:`\mathfrak{g}`-sim. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Wow, you are not selling it at all. 😅 Instead of this, can you drop a linebreak and write a sentence that convinces me I should be interested?
Also, g-sim comes up with zero context. Maybe prefacing with a sentence of explanation would be helpful?
Maybe you could even explicitly mention your previous demo and say how this builds onto it?
As a reader, I would also want to know what you will be showing in the demo. I made a comment in the concluding paragraph about this — maybe you can use this space to explicitly say what you're coding here and what for?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I am not trying to sell it, but rather give a disclaimer: this is for the most part useless in practice. It is conceptually interesting, and in the context provided above and below certainly relevant. But the reality is that only very few systems lead to polynomially sized DLAs where this is practically relevant (essentially boiling down to the TFIM)
I made some changes to address your other comments ✅
There was a problem hiding this comment.
You know what, maybe you should say that outright, then?
Just because, if I read this opening paragraph without any other context, I would not have any interest in continuing. 🤔
Does that make sense? You don't have to endorse or recommend anything, but you spent a lot of time writing this, and there's got to be a reason for that. :) We do want people to read and learn from your work, so we should tell them why. Explicitly adding this 'disclaimer' in the opener might be a very good way of doing that. Would something like that vibe with you?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Haha okay I am all for being in-the-face, let me know if you find the new version more engaging. There is also an intermediary version that I can be found in the commit before the latest.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Nice!
The in-between version (this one, right?) is great.
If you want to revert to that, shall we call it done?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yeah I also like that one better. Pushing the revert now
Co-authored-by: Ivana Kurečić <[email protected]>
demonstrations/tutorial_liesim.py
Outdated
| Let us see what the fuss is all about and learn about the conceptually interesting, yet practically not-too-relevant | ||
| Lie-algebraic simulation techniques of variational quantum circuits in :math:`\mathfrak{g}`-sim. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
You know what, maybe you should say that outright, then?
Just because, if I read this opening paragraph without any other context, I would not have any interest in continuing. 🤔
Does that make sense? You don't have to endorse or recommend anything, but you spent a lot of time writing this, and there's got to be a reason for that. :) We do want people to read and learn from your work, so we should tell them why. Explicitly adding this 'disclaimer' in the opener might be a very good way of doing that. Would something like that vibe with you?
A demo and discussion of Lie algebraic simulation techniques, i.e. papers https://arxiv.org/abs/1012.2873 and https://arxiv.org/abs/2308.01432
If you are writing a demonstration, please answer these questions to facilitate the marketing process.
If you are writing a demonstration, please answer these questions to facilitate the marketing process.
GOALS — Why are we working on this now?
g-sim is a hot topic. Most prominently, it shows that systems with provably absent barren plateaus can be simulated efficiently. This is conceptually interesting, though likely not very relevant in practice since the systems for which this is indeed the case are very rare.
AUDIENCE — Who is this for?
Quantum researchers, practitioners with a fair understanding. In combination with the linked Intro to DLA demo this should also be suitable for beginners.
KEYWORDS — What words should be included in the marketing post?
Which of the following types of documentation is most similar to your file?
(more details here)
[sc-58429]